In 2004, Conservationists with Common Sense (CWCS) was involved in a federal court case related to permit quotas for motorized access on chains of lakes within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).
Summary Judgment Hearing
On February 11, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim held a hearing in Minneapolis to review motions for summary judgment. The case focused on how the U.S. Forest Service recalculated motor permit quotas in response to changes in federal law and previous exemptions.
Betsy Schmiesing of the Faegre Law Firm represented the Friends of the Boundary Waters. She argued that the Forest Service used inflated numbers when increasing permit quotas, which allegedly led to more motor use within the BWCAW. Schmiesing also stated that property owners and resort guests still hold exempt permits for accessing the lakes where they reside. However, she did not address new permit requirements for extended travel beyond the first lake.
David Oberstar of the Fryberger Law Firm represented CWCS. He argued that the Forest Service used conservative estimates, failing to account for property owners who sold their land due to the 1978 BWCAW restrictions. He also stated that restoring permits to users previously excluded by legal changes did not result in more motor use overall.
Joan Humes, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minneapolis, represented the Forest Service. She explained that the agency used the best available data, based on limited resources, to determine permit use during the cap years of 1976–1978. Following an appeals court ruling, the Forest Service was required to revise the quota to include users who had been exempted previously.
Court Decision (August 26, 2004)
Judge Tunheim ruled that the Forest Service must reduce motor permits on three chains of lakes by two-thirds. The court concluded that Congress had set a clear permit cap in the 1978 BWCAW Act. The Forest Service was found to have overstepped its authority by recalculating that cap. Judge Tunheim described the agency’s permit increase as “arbitrary and capricious.”
Forest Service Appeals the Decision
The Forest Service later appealed the ruling. Kawishiwi District Ranger Mark Van Every stated that the agency believed the previous court decision overlooked important aspects of the issue.
Appeals Court Decision (Eighth Circuit)
The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling. The court confirmed that the Forest Service had the authority to revise base-period data to address legal errors identified in prior rulings. It ruled that recalculating permit quotas was a valid part of the agency’s management responsibilities under the BWCAW Act. CWCS issued a press release and summary highlighting the key points of the appellate ruling.
Note: This summary presents legal events and agency actions from 2004 and 2005. Current BWCAW permit rules, court interpretations, and Forest Service policies may differ from those described here.